MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297225278 · doi:10.1287/opre.2022.2300

Individualized Dynamic Patient Monitoring Under Alarm Fatigue

2022· article· en· W4297225278 on OpenAlexaff
Hossein Piri, Woonghee Tim Huh, Steven M. Shechter, Darren Hudson

Bibliographic record

VenueOperations Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsALARMComputer scienceHarmConstant false alarm rateFalse positive paradoxFalse alarmProcess (computing)Medical emergencyMedicineArtificial intelligencePsychologySocial psychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Individualized Patient Monitoring Under Alarm Fatigue Hospitals are rife with alarms, many of which are false. This leads to alarm fatigue, in which clinicians become desensitized and may inadvertently ignore real threats. “Individualized Dynamic Patient Monitoring Under Alarm Fatigue” by Piri, Huh, Shechter, and Hudson studies the problem of personalizing alarm thresholds for vital signs at a hospital while considering the ”boy who cried wolf” effect of false alarms. The authors create a model that learns patients’ personal alarm thresholds during their hospital stay and updates their alarm settings dynamically. They formulate the problem as a partially observable Markov decision process. They provide structural properties of the optimal policy and perform a numerical case study based on clinical data from an intensive care unit. They show that dynamic methods of alarm settings that explicitly consider the feedback loop of false positives can significantly reduce patient harm when compared with current methods of alarm settings.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.231
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOperations ResearchSame topicHealthcare Technology and Patient MonitoringFrench-language works237,207